Well I think I will try 3.872. I have not liked any V1 after 3.851. I am not sure if the cost cutting bug has hit VR but I can tell you for sure they are not what 3.826 and below have been . I will keep you all posted on my findings
Well I think I will try 3.872. I have not liked any V1 after 3.851. I am not sure if the cost cutting bug has hit VR but I can tell you for sure they are not what 3.826 and below have been . I will keep you all posted on my findings
I think you should try it out and report back. I tryed one and it was pretty crappy, but who knows maybe I just got a crappy unit when I tryed one for the first time.
Last edited by Sajin; 06-29-2009 at 03:22 PM.
Well i can tell you this, they "topped" out about 2 years ago maybe more.
3.872 has nothing performance wise over 3.863
so if you're expecting some performance gains, don't.
The performance, range wise is at good as it gets.
It still performs well, don't get me wrong, but it's topped out.
The V1 version to performance equation seems counter-intuitive. One would think that the latest version of something would be the most advanced and cutting edge detector, when in fact the older V1's seem to be the hottest. Why is that? Too much being programmed into 3.872's that cuts down on detection range/sensitivity? Chalk it up to the old saying, "they aint what they used to be?".
Screw my new V1.....I want a used, older one
I hope you are wrong because I've had mine about 6 month's. I am really happy with mine. I've noticed very good range and to me very quiet. This is my first V1 and i would buy another. I have read that the V1 is very chatty but i totally disagree. So i am waiting for your results.
I have the 3.872 version and even thou i havent used any of the previous revisions. i still think it does a really good job in warning me ahead of time. I have couple of big saves. The biggest ive had so far is the 1.5 miles.
Bookmarks